Save Western Civilization > Save Serbia

Pre-WW2 Kingdom of Yugoslavia

(1/9) > >>

Spectator:
I heard Croats and Bosniaks asked to join the common state with the Serbs after the World War I.

Is it true?
Why did they need that?
Was it good for Serbs?

sonja_yu:

--- Quote from: Spectator on August 19, 2009, 10:15:07 AM ---I heard Croats and Bosniaks asked to join the common state with the Serbs after the World War I.

Is it true?
Why did they need that?
Was it good for Serbs?

--- End quote ---

There were no Bosniaks at that time.

The idea of a common state of Southern Slavs is an old idea, promoted by all.

There were a couple of national revival movements, among which was the Illyrian movement.

After WWI, Kingdom of Serbia enlarged its territories by being joined by Montenegro and what's today known as Vojvodina and north Slavonia (not Slovenia).
On the other hand, on the rest of Southern Slavonic territories previously possessed by Austro-Hungary, another short-living unrecognized state was created. It was called "The State of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes" (referring to Serbs who didn't live in Kingdom of Serbia).
That state short after joined Kingdom of Serbia and then Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was created. All of that happened in 1918.

Kingdom SCS was supported by the West and they almost insisted for that to be created. The Serbs were seen as the main nation and the king got the title "Alexander the Unifier".
It was renamed to Yugoslavia after a couple of unrests in 1929.

Spectator:
Why did the West insist then that the common state be created? It seems opposite to what they did in 1990-ies when they supported Yugoslavia's disintegration and creation of national states.

sonja_yu:

--- Quote from: Spectator on August 20, 2009, 04:56:51 AM ---Why did the West insist then that the common state be created? It seems opposite to what they did in 1990-ies when they supported Yugoslavia's disintegration and creation of national states.

--- End quote ---

Because all of this happened prior to Cold War, the World was divided in a different way. We were the allies with France, UK and USA. I can give you some books written by them at that time by them.
Keep in mind that, during the war, Russia had a Revolution and it gone into Communism, since then, our relations were somewhat cold, but we remained allies with France, UK and somewhat USA. Relations with Russia weren't bad, just cold, we still didn't follow their path.

Those "nation states" aren't nation states. The name "Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes" wasn't by accident, the only real major nations were those three. There were no Bosniaks, no Montenegrins, no FYRoM.
Bosnia and Montenegro have the history of being states, but not of being nations, it's just not the same.

One strong country on the Balkans was seen as a good idea and it was almost like awarding the Serbs after WWI.
Today, everyone (East or West) is following one way "more small, weaker countries - easier to control and dominate".

Spectator:
Too bad France, UK and USA forgot who was their ally in both world wars.

BTW post-war Tito's Yugoslavia was considered a traitor by Soviet Union. They thought Yugoslavia is too independent and too pro-Western. There were even dissidents (persecuted, of course) in USSR who wanted that it follow Yugoslav model of communism. Compared to that of USSR, Yugoslav model seemed to them more moderate and democratic.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page